alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 4597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-771]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel, From Intervention Development to Services: 
Exploratory Research Grants (R34).
    Date: February 15, 2006.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: A. Roger Little, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive 
Blvd., Room 6157, MSC 9609, Rockville, MD 20852-9609, 301-402-5844, 
[email protected].
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel, Review of Conte Centers for Depression and Anxiety.
    Date: February 21-22, 2006.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Clarion Bethesda Park, 8400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, 
MD 20814.
    Contact Person: A. Roger Little, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive 
Blvd., Room 6157, MSC 9609, Rockville, MD 20852-9609, 301-402-5844, 
[email protected].

    Dated: January 20, 2006.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 06-771 Filed 1-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
#### Engel v. Samuels.

1. Limitations.

An action on a promissory note is not barred until after the lapse of six years from its maturity.

2. Same—Pbesumption on Appeal.

The defendant appealed from a judgment against him by a justice of the peace to the county court, where, upon a trial *de novo,*he interposed as a set-off the plaintiff’s note, against which the statute had not run at the time of the trial in the justice’s court. The record being silent as to whether the note was interposed as a set-off before the justice, *held*that it must be assumed that it was, and that an objection to its introduction at the trial in the county eourt solely on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations was not well taken.

*Appeal from the County Court of Arapahoe County.*

Mr. Alfred Muller, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

*340Thomson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was instituted in a justice’s court by A. Samuels against S. Engel upon a demand for $78.00.' The plaintiff recovered judgment and the defendant appealed to the county court, where the cause was tried *de novo,*and judgment again rendered against the defendant.

At the trial in the county court the defendant, by way of set-off, offered in evidence a promissory note for $99.00, held by him, executed by the plaintiff on the 20th day of February, 1889, and payable one month after date with interest. The note was objected to on behalf of the plaintiff. The only reason assigned for the objection was that the note was barred by the statute of limitations. The objection was sustained, and the note rejected. An action on a promissory note is not barred until after the lapse of six years from its maturity. This note matured on March 20,1889; the cause was tried in the justice’s court on September 11, 1894, not quite five years and six months later. The justice’s record, as we have it, is so meager that we cannot tell from it whether, as the statute requires, the note was interposed as a set-off before him or not; but the defendant did not object in the county court that it was not, and we must therefore assume that it was. The statute had not run against the note when the cause was tried by the justice, and why the county court rejected it, the record affords us no ground for conjecture.. In so far as the record throws any light on the subject, the rejection of the note was error, and the judgment must be reversed.

*Reversed.*
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4457 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25


</TABLE>
Pipe Creek Water Well, LLC 

and Robert Rae 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 4, 2015

No. 04-14-00906-CV

David MAUK,

Appellant

v.

PIPE CREEK WATER WELL, LLC and Robert Rae Powell,

Appellees

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-00386

Honorable Richard Price, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond to Appellee’s Reply 

Brief is GRANTED. The appellant’s reply brief is due on March 19, 2015.

It is so ORDERED on this 4th day of March, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:___________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# EUR-Lex - 12002E096 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 12002E096

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Three: Community policies - Title VI: Common rules on competition, taxation and approximation of laws - Chapter 3: Approximation of laws - Article 96 - Article 101 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) - Article 101 - EEC Treaty **

*
Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0070 - 0070 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0215 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0033 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)

Part Three: Community policies

Title VI: Common rules on competition, taxation and approximation of laws

Chapter 3: Approximation of laws

Article 96

Article 101 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version)

Article 101 - EEC Treaty

Article 96

Where the Commission finds that a difference between the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States is distorting the conditions of competition in the common market and that the resultant distortion needs to be eliminated, it shall consult the Member States concerned.

If such consultation does not result in an agreement eliminating the distortion in question, the Council shall, on a proposal from the Commission, acting by a qualified majority, issue the necessary directives. The Commission and the Council may take any other appropriate measures provided for in this Treaty.
**Exhibit
      23.01**


**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**






We
      consent to the incorporation by
      reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-26359) pertaining
      to
      the Sonic Corp. Savings and Profit Sharing Plan, Registration Statement (Form
      S-8 No. 333-131450)
      pertaining to the Sonic Corp. 2006
      Long-Term Incentive Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-64890)
      pertaining to the 1991 Sonic Corp. Stock Option Plan, 2001 Sonic Corp. Stock
      Option Plan and 2001 Sonic Corp. Directors’ Stock Option Plan, the Registration
      Statements (Forms S-8 No. 333-09373, No. 33-40989 and No. 33-78576)
      pertaining to the 1991 Sonic Corp. Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement
      (Form S-8 No. 33-40988) pertaining to the 1991 Sonic Corp. Stock Purchase
      Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-40987) pertaining to the
      1991
      Sonic Corp. Directors’ Stock Option Plan and the Registration Statement (Form
      S-3 No. 33-95716) for the registration of 1,420,000 shares of its common stock,
      and the related Prospectuses of our reports dated October 17, 2007, with respect
      to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Sonic Corp. and the
      effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Sonic Corp.,
      included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended August 31,
      2007.






ERNST
&
YOUNG
                LLPOklahoma
                City, OklahomaOctober
                24, 2007
§ 680.9 Penalties. ( a ) Any person committing, or a fishing vessel used in the commission of, a violation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or any regulation issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is subject to the civil and criminal penalty provisions, permit sanctions, and civil forfeiture provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to part 600 of this chapter, to 15 CFR part 904 (Civil Procedures), and to other applicable law. Penalties include but are not limited to permanent or temporary sanctions to PQS, QS, IPQ, IFQ, Crab IFQ hired master, Federal crab vessel permit, or RCR permits.
( b ) In the event a holder of any IPQ is found by a court of competent jurisdiction, either in an original action in that court or in a proceeding to enforce or review the findings or orders of any Government agency having jurisdiction under the antitrust laws, to have violated any of the provisions of antitrust laws in the conduct of the licensed activity, the Secretary of Commerce may revoke all or a portion of such IPQ. The antitrust laws of the United States include, but are not limited to, the following Acts: ( 1 ) The Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1-7;
( 2 ) The Wilson Tariff Act, 15 U.S.C. 8-11;
( 3 ) The Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 12-27; and
( 4 ) The Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 12 and 45(a).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

JAMAL GLOVER, 

 Petitioner 

No. 94 EM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 29th day of September, 2015, the Petition for a Remand and a 

Stay is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of 

Philadelphia County for it to hold, within 45 days, a hearing per Commonwealth v. 

Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). The court is DIRECTED to issue its determination 

within 30 days of that hearing. 

A Petition for Allowance of Appeal shall be due within 30 days of the common 

pleas court’s adjudication of the Grazier issue.
Editorial Note on Part 300
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 300 appear at 64 FR 44431, Aug. 16, 1999, and at 76 FR 59305, Sept. 26, 2011.

§ 300.141 Definitions. In addition to the terms defined in § 300.2 and those in the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Agreement, the terms used in this subpart have the following meanings. If a term is defined differently in § 300.2, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or the Agreement, the definition in this section applies. *Applicable Canadian fisheries law* means any Canadian law, regulation or similar provision relating in any manner to fishing by any fishing vessel other than a Canadian fishing vessel in waters subject to the fisheries jurisdiction of Canada, including, but not limited to, any provision relating to stowage of fishing gear by vessels passing through such waters, and to obstruction or interference with enforcement of any such law or regulation.
*Authorized officer of Canada* means any fishery officer, protection officer, officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or other employee authorized by the appropriate authority of any national or provincial agency of Canada to enforce any applicable Canadian fisheries law.
*Canadian fishing vessel* means a fishing vessel: ( 1 ) That is registered or licensed in Canada under the Canada Shipping Act and is owned by one or more persons each of whom is a Canadian citizen, a person resident and domiciled in Canada, or a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada or of a province, having its principal place of business in Canada; or
( 2 ) That is not required by the Canada Shipping Act to be registered or licensed in Canada and is not registered or licensed elsewhere but is owned as described in paragraph (1) of this definition.
*Waters subject to the fisheries jurisdiction of Canada* means the internal waters, territorial sea, and the zone that Canada has established, extending 200 nautical miles from its coasts, in which it exercises sovereign rights for the purpose of exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of living marine resources, to the extent recognized by the United States.
Filed 4/17/08 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2008 ND 63

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Bobi Jo Herbel, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20070344

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Robert O. Wefald, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Brandi Sasse Russell, Assistant State’s Attorney, Courthouse, 514 East Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58501-4413, for plaintiff and appellee.

Justin D. Roness, 721 Memorial Highway, P.O. Box 4252, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-4252, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Herbel

No. 20070344

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Bobi Jo Herbel appeals the judgment of the district court entered after she conditionally pled guilty to possession of marijuana by an operator of a motor vehicle, reserving the right to appeal the district court’s refusal to suppress evidence in her case.  Herbel argues law enforcement lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle she was driving.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3), concluding there was reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle.

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner
Editorial Note on Part 622
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

§ 622.379 Incidental catch allowances. ( a ) *Purse seine incidental catch allowance.* A vessel in the EEZ, or having fished in the EEZ, with a purse seine on board will not be considered as fishing, or having fished, for king or Spanish mackerel in violation of a prohibition of purse seines under § 622.375(b), in violation of the possession limits under § 622.375(b)(3), or, in the case of king mackerel from the Atlantic migratory group, in violation of a closure effected in accordance with § 622.8(b), provided the king mackerel on board does not exceed 1 percent, or the Spanish mackerel on board does not exceed 10 percent, of all fish on board the vessel. Incidental catch will be calculated by number and/or weight of fish. Neither calculation may exceed the allowable percentage. Incidentally caught king or Spanish mackerel are counted toward the quotas provided for under § 622.384 and are subject to the prohibition of sale under § 622.384(e)(2).
( b ) *Shark gillnet incidental catch allowance.* A vessel in the Atlantic EEZ with a valid Federal Atlantic commercial shark directed permit and a valid Federal king mackerel commercial permit that is engaged in directed shark fishing with gillnets that are not an authorized gear for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel (See § 622.375(a)(1)(i)), may retain and sell a limited number of king mackerel. Any king mackerel retained must be sold to a dealer with a valid Federal Gulf and South Atlantic dealer permit. ( 1 ) *Northern zone.* No more than three king mackerel per crew member may be retained or sold per trip (See § 622.385(a)(1)(i) for the commercial trip limit for directed king mackerel trips using authorized gillnets (in the Atlantic EEZ north of 34°37.3′ N. lat., the latitude of Cape Lookout, NC)).
( 2 ) *Southern zone.* No more than two king mackerel per crew member may be retained or sold per trip.
[82 FR 17397, Apr. 11, 2017, as amended at 82 FR 35660, Aug. 1, 2017]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of
title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Precision Optics Corporation, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

The
annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2010 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

DATE: September 21, 2010/s/ Richard E. Forkey Richard E. Forkey, Chairman of the Board, Chief
Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer,
President and Treasurer/s/ Jack P. Dreimiller Jack P. Dreimiller, Chief Financial Officer
Principal Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer


---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Donald Sharpe, President, and Drew Bonnell, Secretary, Treasurer and CFO of Eden Energy Corp., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| (1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Eden Energy Corp. for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Eden Energy Corp. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Dated:  May 10, 2007

/s/ Donald Sharpe

Donald Sharpe, President

(Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ Drew Bonnell

Drew Bonnell

Secretary, Treasurer and CFO

(Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Eden Energy Corp. and will be retained by Eden Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

CW1170927.1
#### § 217.42 Permissible methods of taking.

Under LOAs issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.46, the Holder of the LOAs (hereinafter “AGDC”) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the area described in § 217.40(b) by Level A harassment and Level B harassment associated with pile driving and pipe laying activities, provided the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of the regulations in this subpart and the applicable LOAs.